For the most part, instant replay reverses or confirms catches and drops easily.
But slow motion has not been a friend of the diving catch or the continuation of a play.
Last week, Calvin Johnson caught a pass from Matthew Stafford and as quick as he caught it he began to make a football move — a dive toward the end zone to break the plane of the goal line.
Johnson is so talented that immediately after he corralled the ball, he was able to consciously push forward for the goal. It turned out to be one continuous motion.
When the referee looked at it under the hood, he followed the rule that Johnson was heading to the ground and he has to control it through the completion of the catch.
The completion of the catch. I hate that statement.
Watch the video. Yes, Johnson is off-balanced, but it can be easily seen that the completion of the catch should be considered when he made the conscious effort to extend the ball over the goal line for the touchdown.
And the fact is, he never lost the ball. "The ground helped him catch it." ... I'll return to this point in a second, but first, let's jump in our time machine.
Detroit's game-winner in Chicago a few years ago was overturned because Johnson after getting three feet down, a hand and then a butt, let the ball go.
This has been analyzed many times and one thing that I recently heard pointed out that no one really talked about was the fact that Johnson's left hand touches out of bounds before the ball is lose.
Technically, at that point, the play is dead and at that point the catch was complete.
Nevertheless, you cannot deny in either situation that Johnson fully controlled the ball. There are receivers who catch touchdown passes and spike the ball, owning less possession time than Johnson did in his non-catches.
OK, Jimmy. Why are we still talking about last Sunday?
Because I saw a similar thing happen in the Patriots-Jets game Thursday night.
It's not as clear-cut as the Johnson catches, but I could make a good argument for Kimbrell Thompkins' touchdown catch that was ruled not a catch.
If you watch the play, he controls the ball in the air as he dives. It's in his control until he hits the ground, at which point the "ground helps him maintain possession," says the referee. He never actually lost control.
I understand the ground can help someone make a catch, I do.
But when a receiver already has possession, is it really helping? Or is it just furthering the catch. When a running back is tackled, if the ball touches the ground while still in his hands, we don't say, "Man, the ground kept him from fumbling."
No, we don't. It's just a good run.
But when a receiver possesses the same control before the ground comes into contact with it, it's an incomplete pass.
For those instances when the ball is clearly controlled throughout the catch until the ground comes into play, it's just ridiculous. Yes, if the receiver loses the ball after that point, I can see why it's not a catch, but it is when a receiver has full control both before and after, I just don't agree.
Interestingly enough, I'm watching the Michigan-Akron game right now and the Zips just caught a pass at the 3-yard line and the receiver dived toward the end zone and came up short. He actually lost the ball after he hit the ground, but again, I'd have no doubt that he caught the ball.
It was reviewed and upheld as a catch. I know it's college football, but nevertheless, the same thing happened. Very odd to write about something and have it happen.
Anyway, I doubt it will be corrected in the NFL any time soon, but after two big TD catches were negated, I had to vent.
Comments